Literature DB >> 32795920

The Specificity of Inhibitory Control Deficits in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: A Dissociation Between the Speed and Reliability of Stopping.

Diane Swick1, Victoria Ashley2.   

Abstract

Inhibitory control over thoughts, emotions, and actions is challenging for people with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Whether specific aspects of inhibitory control are differentially affected in PTSD remains an open question. Here we examined performance on two popular response inhibition tasks in 28 combat Veterans with PTSD and 27 control Veterans. We used a Hybrid variant that intermixed 75% Go trials, 12.5% NoGo trials, and 12.5% Stop trials. Parameters from an ex-Gaussian race model (Matzke et al., 2017) provided estimates of stopping speed (μ Stop) and stopping variability (τ Stop). Participants with PTSD had higher error rates on NoGo trials, replicating previous results. The estimated probability of "trigger failures" (failures to launch inhibitory control) on Stop trials was also higher in PTSD patients, suggesting that sustained attention was a common deficit in the two tasks. Stopping variability was also increased in participants with PTSD, which supports a difficulty with maintaining task goals. Conversely, stopping speed did not differ between patients and controls, suggesting that core inhibitory processes were intact. These results demonstrate a dissociation between the speed and reliability of motor response inhibition in PTSD, and suggest that top-down inhibitory control was deployed less consistently in participants with PTSD. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cognitive Control; Executive Control; Go/NoGo; PTSD; Response Inhibition; Stop-signal

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32795920      PMCID: PMC7895465          DOI: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102278

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anxiety Disord        ISSN: 0887-6185


  57 in total

Review 1.  Neurocircuitry models of posttraumatic stress disorder and extinction: human neuroimaging research--past, present, and future.

Authors:  Scott L Rauch; Lisa M Shin; Elizabeth A Phelps
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2006-08-15       Impact factor: 13.382

Review 2.  Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm.

Authors:  Frederick Verbruggen; Gordon D Logan
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 20.229

3.  Worse baseline executive functioning is associated with dropout and poorer response to trauma-focused treatment for veterans with PTSD and comorbid traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Laura D Crocker; Sarah M Jurick; Kelsey R Thomas; Amber V Keller; Mark Sanderson-Cimino; Briana Boyd; Carie Rodgers; Elizabeth W Twamley; Amy J Jak
Journal:  Behav Res Ther       Date:  2018-07-19

4.  Inhibiting responses to difficult choices.

Authors:  Dora Matzke; Samuel Curley; Charlene Q Gong; Andrew Heathcote
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2019-01

5.  Differences in unity: The go/no-go and stop signal tasks rely on different mechanisms.

Authors:  Liisa Raud; René Westerhausen; Niamh Dooley; René J Huster
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-01-25       Impact factor: 6.556

6.  Response inhibition in adolescent earthquake survivors with and without posttraumatic stress disorder: a combined behavioral and ERP study.

Authors:  Jianhui Wu; Yan Ge; Zhanbiao Shi; Xiaoju Duan; Li Wang; Xianghong Sun; Kan Zhang
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  2010-07-22       Impact factor: 3.046

7.  Distinct frontal systems for response inhibition, attentional capture, and error processing.

Authors:  D J Sharp; V Bonnelle; X De Boissezon; C F Beckmann; S G James; M C Patel; M A Mehta
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-03-10       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applications with JASP.

Authors:  Eric-Jan Wagenmakers; Jonathon Love; Maarten Marsman; Tahira Jamil; Alexander Ly; Josine Verhagen; Ravi Selker; Quentin F Gronau; Damian Dropmann; Bruno Boutin; Frans Meerhoff; Patrick Knight; Akash Raj; Erik-Jan van Kesteren; Johnny van Doorn; Martin Šmíra; Sacha Epskamp; Alexander Etz; Dora Matzke; Tim de Jong; Don van den Bergh; Alexandra Sarafoglou; Helen Steingroever; Koen Derks; Jeffrey N Rouder; Richard D Morey
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-02

9.  Established risk factors for addiction fail to discriminate between healthy gamers and gamers endorsing DSM-5 Internet gaming disorder.

Authors:  Jory Deleuze; Filip Nuyens; Lucien Rochat; Stéphane Rothen; Pierre Maurage; Joël Billieux
Journal:  J Behav Addict       Date:  2017-11-13       Impact factor: 6.756

10.  The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates.

Authors:  D E Broadbent; P F Cooper; P FitzGerald; K R Parkes
Journal:  Br J Clin Psychol       Date:  1982-02
View more
  2 in total

1.  Mind Wandering Impedes Response Inhibition by Affecting the Triggering of the Inhibitory Process.

Authors:  Sumitash Jana; Adam R Aron
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2022-06-14

2.  Visuospatial Working Memory Tasks May Not Reduce the Intensity or Distress of Intrusive Memories.

Authors:  Amalia Badawi; Zachary Steel; David Berle
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 4.157

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.